Abstract: Are Domestic Violence Services Working for Child Welfare-Involved Mothers? Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, II (NSCAW II) (Society for Social Work and Research 20th Annual Conference - Grand Challenges for Social Work: Setting a Research Agenda for the Future)

Are Domestic Violence Services Working for Child Welfare-Involved Mothers? Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, II (NSCAW II)

Schedule:
Friday, January 15, 2016: 3:15 PM
Meeting Room Level-Meeting Room 14 (Renaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel)
* noted as presenting author
Ijeoma Nwabuzor Ogbonnaya, PhD, Assistant Professor, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
Loring P. Jones, DSW, Professor of Social Work, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, CA
Background and Purpose: Research consistently indicates that child welfare caseworkers under-identify domestic violence (DV). This is problematic because child welfare-involved families with unidentified DV are less likely to be linked to DV services than those with identified DV. However, whether the services DV-affected families receive is in fact helpful remains uncertain. Systematic review studies have reported no improvements or modest improvements in DV survivor outcomes once DV is detected. These studies do not include child welfare samples. To examine whether this is true for families involved with child welfare, the current study compares longitudinal trends in DV frequency among a sample of child welfare-involved mothers who did and did not receive DV services.

Methods: This analysis used data from the second round of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW II). The sample included DV-affected mothers who received (n= 105) and did not receive (n= 520) DV services. Data was collected for three times: baseline, 18-month follow-up, and 36-month follow-up. The outcome variable, DV frequency, was measured using the Conflict Tactic Scale 2 (CTS-2). Mothers were asked about whether they experienced DV during the past year; and, if so, how often (ranging from not at all [0] to more than 20 times [6]). In addition, mothers were asked if they received DV services during the past year. Longitudinal, multilevel analysis was used to estimate the effects of DV services on mothers’ DV frequency across the three times. We defined individual mothers as the Level 2 unit of analysis and repeated measurements nested within each mother as the Level 1 unit.

Results: While both groups experienced some DV at all three times (M=5.47), on average, mothers who received DV services experienced significantly higher frequencies of DV (B= 2.53, p=.05). However, a significant cross-level interaction between time and DV services was found indicating that, although the DV frequency of  mothers who received services is initially higher than those who did not receive services, it decreases at a faster rate over time (B = -5.13, p < .001).  

Conclusions and Implications:  Contrary to prior research that suggests DV services do not improve outcomes, findings from this study show when mothers involved with child welfare receive DV services their risk for continued DV decreases overtime. It may be that child welfare-involved mothers receiving DV services are more inclined than mothers not involved with child welfare to adhere to safety plans for fear that their children may be removed. In addition, we found that mothers who received services were more likely to have higher DV frequencies than those who did not receive services. A child who witnesses DV once may be equally as traumatized as a child who witnesses DV more than once. Thus, all child welfare-involved families affected by DV should have an equal chance of receiving services, regardless of how often the DV occurred. We recommend that child welfare caseworkers are trained to properly link family’s to DV services. Such training may be encouraged through collaborations with DV advocates.